Disciplinary Counsel v. Jefferson - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JEFFERSON.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jefferson (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Ignoring orders of
Supreme Court -- Continuing to practice law while under suspension.
(No. 98-757 -- Submitted June 10, 1998 -- Decided September 30, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-84.

On September 21, 1995, respondent, James Jefferson, Jr. of Cleveland,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0032871, was suspended from the practice of law
and ordered to pay a $600 sanction for failure to comply with the Gov.Bar R. X
continuing legal education requirements for the 1992-1993 reporting period. In re
Report of the Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., James Jefferson, Jr. (1995), 73
Ohio St.3d 1464, 654 N.E.2d 1276. The order suspending respondent also noted
that he had failed "to pay a previous court-ordered sanction for noncompliance in
a previous reporting period." In addition, respondent failed to timely register with
the Clerk of the Supreme Court as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1) for the three
biennia 1989/1990, 1991/1992, and 1993/1994, and failed to register at all for the
two biennia 1995/1996 and 1997/1998.

Upon being advised by a judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court that after
September 21, 1995, respondent represented parties in sixteen cases in that
tribunal, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, attempted to contact respondent.
The law firm whose address respondent had listed with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court advised relator that respondent had not been at that firm for over two years.
Relator found that the respondent's residence telephone had been disconnected.

In addition, relator discovered that after September 1995, respondent
continued to practice law in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Division

of Domestic Relations, by representing the defendant in Zama v. Zama, case No.
D245834. Relator also discovered that in February 1997, respondent was charged
with passing two bad checks, that he failed to appear in court, and that the Euclid
Municipal Court issued warrants for his arrest. The arrest warrants remain
outstanding.

On October 13, 1997, relator filed a three-count complaint charging that
respondent's conduct violated several Disciplinary Rules. After unsuccessfully
attempting to serve respondent at his last known address, relator served the
complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio as authorized by Gov.Bar R.
V(11)(B). When respondent failed to answer or plead within the time prescribed
by rule, relator filed a motion for default, and the matter was heard by a panel of
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board").

The panel found the facts as stated and concluded with respect to counts one
and two that by practicing law after being suspended respondent had violated DR
1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting upon the attorney's ability to
practice law), and 3-101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would
violate the regulations of the jurisdiction). The panel concluded with respect to
count three that by failing to appear in response to the charges of passing bad
checks and by having outstanding warrants for his arrest, respondent had violated
DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6). The panel concluded with respect to count four that by
practicing law after failing to register as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1), respondent
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 3-101(B). The panel recommended that respondent
be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.

2

__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the board. Absent any mitigating circumstances, the penalty for ignoring orders of
the court and continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 441, 687 N.E.2d 415, and
cases cited therein. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice
of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

3